Promising recent research suggests that more cognitively demanding interviews improve deception detection accuracy. Would these cognitively demanding techniques work in the same way when discriminating between true and false future intentions? In Experiment 1 participants planned to complete a task, but instead were intercepted and interviewed about their intentions. Participants lied or told the truth, and were subjected to high (reverse order) or low (sequential order) cognitive load interviews. Third-party observers watched these interviews and indicated whether they thought the person was lying or telling the truth. Subjecting participants to a reverse compared to sequential interview increased the misidentification rate and the appearance of cognitive load in truth tellers. People lying about false intentions were not better identified. In Experiment 2, a second set of third-party observers rated behavioral cues. Consistent with Experiment 1, truth tellers, but not liars, exhibited more behaviors associated with lying and fewer behaviors associated with truth telling in the reverse than sequential interview. Together these results suggest that certain cognitively demanding interviews may be less useful when interviewing to detect false intentions. Explaining a true intention while under higher cognitive demand places truth tellers at risk of being misclassified. There may be such a thing as too much cognitive load induced by certain techniques

Purpose The cross‐race effect can be exaggerated when faces are presented in groups, leading to less accurate eyewitness identifications (Pezdek, O'Brien, & Wasson, , Law Hum. Behav., 36, 488). Our current study examined the effect of entitativity, the degree to which members of a group are perceived as a coherent unit (Campbell, , Behav. Sci., 3, 14), on recognition accuracy for same‐ and cross‐race faces presented in groups. Methods White participants viewed 16 slides of 3‐face groups (eight White groups, eight Black groups). Prior to viewing the faces they were told that the entitativity of each 3‐face group was high (‘friends who do things together’) or low (‘people in line at the bank’). They were then tested on 32 individually presented faces (16 old and 16 new). Results When cross‐race faces were presented in high rather than low entitativity groups, less accurate face recognition memory resulted. Increasing group entitativity decreased recognition accuracy for cross‐race faces but increased recognition accuracy for same‐race faces. Conclusions The results suggest that the perception of a group negatively impacts eyewitness memory. Contextual factors such as entitativity need to be considered along with other estimator variables when assessing eyewitness identification accuracy.

This paper argues that children in guardianship proceedings-specifically cases with allegations of abuse, neglect, or dependency; and cases that are contested-should be appointed a GAL. Many children in guardianship cases in probate court face issues similar to those that children in juvenile court face, and yet, they are denied the right to an advocate as well as many other important due process protections that are available in juvenile court. Critics of probate court have suggested a variety of solutions, including outright abolition of guardianship cases in probate court.7 Because wholesale reform such as abolition may not be financially or politically feasible, this paper suggest a smaller, more concrete solution-namely, the appointment of a GAL for children in guardianship proceedings when allegations of abuse, neglect, or dependency are present, or when the guardianship is contested.

Appropriate reliance on automation is critical in high-risk/high-stress contexts such as military operations. The current study examines how stress affects the decision to rely on automation. Reliance will be examined using a decision making framework, taking into account the cognitive processes that are being affected by stress. Additionally, the role of feedback is essential in updating information to be able to make a more informed decision in the future. Reliability of automation will be manipulated so that actual reliability will be lower than expected reliability in one condition, and will be the same as expected in the other. Participants' ability to incorporate feedback into subsequent reliance decisions will be assessed between stress conditions. Finally, since motivation can encourage more deliberate thinking, motivation will be manipulated between subjects. A better understanding of how reliance decisions are made under stress can inform the design of systems for better human-automation collaboration.

No abstract